the optimal battery

[RichD]

Battery technology is an active area of research, but an
obvious question occurs to me: why is it, no one has determined
the maximum possible energy/volume, and energy/weight?
And from there, discover the chemistry which achieves it?

Is there some lacuna in our understanding of solid state physics
which necessitates an empirical, rather than theoretical approach?

--
Rich

 

[Salmon Egg]

In article
<910b6e89-7fa7-4f90-914f-3022018b4a14@b3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

Battery technology is an active area of research, but an
obvious question occurs to me: why is it, no one has determined
the maximum possible energy/volume, and energy/weight?
And from there, discover the chemistry which achieves it?

Is there some lacuna in our understanding of solid state physics
which necessitates an empirical, rather than theoretical approach?

--
Rich

I believe it has been done. The ultimate limit is pretty much defined by
the electromotive series. After selecting your electrode materials you
should know the THEORETICAL potential difference available for that
cell. You know that you get one mole of charge per equivalents of each
of anode and cathode materials. That gives you an upper limit energy
output for the a known mass of electrodes. Throw in the mass of require
electrolyte and structural material. That gives you the scientific
limit. Then it becomes an non-trivial engineering job.

Other technological problems arise on suitable redox reactions. My first
hand experience is limited, but it seems hat lithium based anodes will
give just about the highest energy density because of the high
electropositive nature of lithium and lithium's low atomic mass. Life is
complicated because aqueous electrolyte of olde primary cells is not
suitable for lithium anodes.

It is this kind of engineefing that will affect ultimate performance.

Bill

--
An old man would be better off never having been born.

 

[Uncle Al]

RichD wrote:

Battery technology is an active area of research, but an
obvious question occurs to me: why is it, no one has determined
the maximum possible energy/volume, and energy/weight?
And from there, discover the chemistry which achieves it?

Is there some lacuna in our understanding of solid state physics
which necessitates an empirical, rather than theoretical approach?

Ya gotta reduce to practice, it must recharge at least 1000 times;
exploding during storage, use, or recharge is a bad thing.

1) Aluminum / fluorine battery is great gazongas on paper - dig the
equivalent weights;

2) tetrafluorotetracyanoquinodimethane /
1,3,6,8-tetrakis(dimethylamino)pyrene is great gazongas on paper.

3) Go build either one, inorganic or organic. We'll wait.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

 

[Benj]

On Jun 17, 10:37 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Battery technology is an active area of research, but an
obvious question occurs to me: why is it, no one has determined
the maximum possible energy/volume, and energy/weight?
And from there, discover the chemistry which achieves it?

Is there some lacuna in our understanding of solid state physics
which necessitates an empirical, rather than theoretical approach?

Finding the max possible just shows you where you stand in the scheme
of what is possible. That is not our problem. The problem is to be
useful batteries must be useful. That means they must have a
reasonably long life (unlike the so commonly used non-liquid ni-cad
pieces of crap), they need to store as much energy as possible without
a lot of weight (hence the differences between lead and lithium), and
you don't want them to discharge by themselves as they sit around
(Nickel Metal Hydride), Hence the real problem as Uncle Al notes is
practicality.

Batteries are on the margin of useful presently but Lead-acid are
heavy. Ni-cads tend to die in a hurry especially if charged a lot. Ni-
MH tend to discharge just sitting, and Li-ion while very nice in a lot
of ways, tend to slowly sink into the sunset within about 5 years. And
this doesn't even get into what it costs to build these batteries.

Just doubling the life of Li-Ion batteries would go a long way toward
making an electric car decent. What good would "theoretical maximum"
storage do if the thing isn't practical?

 

[Androcles]

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:aef98459-a1ce-47e8-a7a6-cb713d0a034f@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 17, 10:37 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Battery technology is an active area of research, but an
obvious question occurs to me: why is it, no one has determined
the maximum possible energy/volume, and energy/weight?
And from there, discover the chemistry which achieves it?

Is there some lacuna in our understanding of solid state physics
which necessitates an empirical, rather than theoretical approach?

Finding the max possible just shows you where you stand in the scheme
of what is possible. That is not our problem. The problem is to be
useful batteries must be useful. That means they must have a
reasonably long life (unlike the so commonly used non-liquid ni-cad
pieces of crap), they need to store as much energy as possible without
a lot of weight (hence the differences between lead and lithium), and
you don't want them to discharge by themselves as they sit around
(Nickel Metal Hydride), Hence the real problem as Uncle Al notes is
practicality.

Batteries are on the margin of useful presently but Lead-acid are
heavy. Ni-cads tend to die in a hurry especially if charged a lot. Ni-
MH tend to discharge just sitting, and Li-ion while very nice in a lot
of ways, tend to slowly sink into the sunset within about 5 years. And
this doesn't even get into what it costs to build these batteries.

Just doubling the life of Li-Ion batteries would go a long way toward
making an electric car decent. What good would "theoretical maximum"
storage do if the thing isn't practical?
============================================
The best way to store a lot of energy in a small, lightweight space
is to use TNT, nitroglycerine or similar compounds. It is also not
practical for domestic application, it has too much energy.
The ideal "battery" consumes its fuel as current is drawn from
it and produces its fuel as it recharges. Hence the hydrogen fuel
cell. Against it is free atmospheric oxygen with which the hydrogen
can combine, rendering hydrogen dangerous. What's needed is two
substances which do not react in air but combine with each other
to release energy, stored in two tanks. I'll leave it to you chemistry
types to find the right fuel.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

On 18/06/2010 16:36, Benj wrote:

On Jun 17, 10:37 pm, RichD<r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Battery technology is an active area of research, but an
obvious question occurs to me: why is it, no one has determined
the maximum possible energy/volume, and energy/weight?
And from there, discover the chemistry which achieves it?

Is there some lacuna in our understanding of solid state physics
which necessitates an empirical, rather than theoretical approach?

Finding the max possible just shows you where you stand in the scheme
of what is possible. That is not our problem. The problem is to be
useful batteries must be useful. That means they must have a
reasonably long life (unlike the so commonly used non-liquid ni-cad
pieces of crap), they need to store as much energy as possible without
a lot of weight (hence the differences between lead and lithium), and
you don't want them to discharge by themselves as they sit around
(Nickel Metal Hydride), Hence the real problem as Uncle Al notes is
practicality.

Batteries are on the margin of useful presently but Lead-acid are
heavy. Ni-cads tend to die in a hurry especially if charged a lot. Ni-
MH tend to discharge just sitting, and Li-ion while very nice in a lot
of ways, tend to slowly sink into the sunset within about 5 years. And
this doesn't even get into what it costs to build these batteries.

Just doubling the life of Li-Ion batteries would go a long way toward
making an electric car decent. What good would "theoretical maximum"
storage do if the thing isn't practical?


Probably the best all-rounder right now is LiFeP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery

However, I suspect that the price of Lithium is going to skyrocket.
Aluminium might be a better choice in the long term.
An Al/Air secondary battery would be ideal.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

 

[Mark Thorson]

Androcles wrote:

The best way to store a lot of energy in a small, lightweight space
is to use TNT, nitroglycerine or similar compounds. It is also not
practical for domestic application, it has too much energy.

You don't understand explosives. They don't have
more energy than other fuels. What they have is
brisance, the ability to build up pressure quickly.
Gasoline, for example, has about 10 times more
energy content per unit weight than TNT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene#Energy_content

 

[Androcles]

"Mark Thorson" <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4C1BDEDC.7F485984@sonic.net...
| Androcles wrote:
| >
| > The best way to store a lot of energy in a small, lightweight space
| > is to use TNT, nitroglycerine or similar compounds. It is also not
| > practical for domestic application, it has too much energy.
|
| You don't understand explosives.

Yes I do. You don't understand energy.


| They don't have
| more energy than other fuels.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!
You don't understand anything, you stupid fuck!
Go away, you are a moron.

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.

I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.

 

[Androcles]

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:6bbf787e-cf5c-46cc-b4f8-b801d7509241@a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 18, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:

| They don't have
| more energy than other fuels.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!
You don't understand anything, you stupid fuck!
Go away, you are a moron.

*plonk*

Hey Andro!

================================
Hey Binge! Did I tell you that you can't fucking reading, you stupid
snipping fuck?
The best way to store a lot of energy in a small, lightweight space
is to use TNT, nitroglycerine or similar compounds. It is also not
practical for domestic application, it has too much energy.
The ideal "battery" consumes its fuel as current is drawn from
it and produces its fuel as it recharges. Hence the hydrogen fuel
cell. Against it is free atmospheric oxygen with which the hydrogen
can combine, rendering hydrogen dangerous. What's needed is two
substances which do not react in air but combine with each other
to release energy, stored in two tanks. I'll leave it to you chemistry
types to find the right fuel.

 

[bw]

"Mark Thorson" <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4C1BDEDC.7F485984@sonic.net...

Androcles wrote:

The best way to store a lot of energy in a small, lightweight space
is to use TNT, nitroglycerine or similar compounds. It is also not
practical for domestic application, it has too much energy.

You don't understand explosives. They don't have
more energy than other fuels. What they have is
brisance, the ability to build up pressure quickly.
Gasoline, for example, has about 10 times more
energy content per unit weight than TNT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene#Energy_content

Yes, reaction rates matter here.
A loaf of bread has more energy than the same mass of nitroglycerine

 

[Benj]

On Jun 18, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:

| They don't have
| more energy than other fuels.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!
You don't understand anything, you stupid fuck!
Go away, you are a moron.

*plonk*

Hey Andro! It's time to go read a freshman textbook again! Anyway we
were talking here about batteries NOT fuel cells. Two different
things. In batteries you charge them with electricity you don't feed
them fuel like some engine.

I love it when Andro makes a fool of himself in a world-wide forum.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

On 19/06/2010 00:40, bw wrote:

"Mark Thorson"<nospam@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4C1BDEDC.7F485984@sonic.net...
Androcles wrote:

The best way to store a lot of energy in a small, lightweight space
is to use TNT, nitroglycerine or similar compounds. It is also not
practical for domestic application, it has too much energy.

You don't understand explosives. They don't have
more energy than other fuels. What they have is
brisance, the ability to build up pressure quickly.
Gasoline, for example, has about 10 times more
energy content per unit weight than TNT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene#Energy_content


Yes, reaction rates matter here.
A loaf of bread has more energy than the same mass of nitroglycerine

Not in a vacuum

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

 

[Androcles]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:882fjpF7amU1@mid.individual.net...
| On 19/06/2010 00:40, bw wrote:
| > "Mark Thorson"<nospam@sonic.net> wrote in message
| > news:4C1BDEDC.7F485984@sonic.net...
| >> Androcles wrote:
| >>>
| >>> The best way to store a lot of energy in a small, lightweight space
| >>> is to use TNT, nitroglycerine or similar compounds. It is also not
| >>> practical for domestic application, it has too much energy.
| >>

| > Yes, reaction rates matter here.
| > A loaf of bread has more energy than the same mass of nitroglycerine
|
| Not in a vacuum
|
Thank you, Dirk.
bw's suggestion for a battery, i.e. combining loaves of bread with
oxygen, doesn't seem to have much merit except in animal muscle
and even then it doesn't recharge. When bw can eat shit and crap
loaves of bread I might be interested, but I understand that is called
'wheat'.

 

[Mark Thorson]

Androcles wrote:

Hey Binge! Did I tell you that you can't fucking reading, you stupid
snipping fuck?
The best way to store a lot of energy in a small, lightweight space
is to use TNT, nitroglycerine or similar compounds. It is also not
practical for domestic application, it has too much energy.

You are a fool, in addition to being dead wrong.

You don't understand explosives. They don't have
more energy than other fuels. What they have is
brisance, the ability to build up pressure quickly.
Gasoline, for example, has about 10 times more
energy content per unit weight than TNT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene#Energy_content

 

[Piotr \"Curious\" Slawins]

RichD wrote:

Battery technology is an active area of research, but an
obvious question occurs to me: why is it, no one has determined
the maximum possible energy/volume, and energy/weight?
And from there, discover the chemistry which achieves it?

Is there some lacuna in our understanding of solid state physics
which necessitates an empirical, rather than theoretical approach?

energy/volume and energy/weight limits are quite defined, problem is that
design of battery involves not only chemistry, but also physics .
i.e. take plain lead acid battery. it seems ideal from economy standpoint -
it is assembled out of readily available substances (cheap). problem is it's
lifetime is not very long, and it's mainly because of physical effects
(diffusion, corrosion, evaporation).

same goes with lot of other designs.


--

 

[Cydrome Leader]

In sci.electronics.misc Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Jun 17, 10:37?pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Battery technology is an active area of research, but an
obvious question occurs to me: why is it, no one has determined
the maximum possible energy/volume, and energy/weight?
And from there, discover the chemistry which achieves it?

Is there some lacuna in our understanding of solid state physics
which necessitates an empirical, rather than theoretical approach?

Finding the max possible just shows you where you stand in the scheme
of what is possible. That is not our problem. The problem is to be
useful batteries must be useful. That means they must have a
reasonably long life (unlike the so commonly used non-liquid ni-cad
pieces of crap), they need to store as much energy as possible without
a lot of weight (hence the differences between lead and lithium), and
you don't want them to discharge by themselves as they sit around
(Nickel Metal Hydride), Hence the real problem as Uncle Al notes is
practicality.

Batteries are on the margin of useful presently but Lead-acid are
heavy. Ni-cads tend to die in a hurry especially if charged a lot. Ni-
MH tend to discharge just sitting, and Li-ion while very nice in a lot
of ways, tend to slowly sink into the sunset within about 5 years. And
this doesn't even get into what it costs to build these batteries.

Just doubling the life of Li-Ion batteries would go a long way toward
making an electric car decent. What good would "theoretical maximum"
storage do if the thing isn't practical?

You sound like you know batteries.

Do you know if any companies still make large prismatic NiHM cells, in
similar form factors to the flooded aircraft started NiCd batteries?

They used to exist for electric vehicle type applictions, but this was
quite some time ago. I've not seen any since.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:22:25 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
<presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

In sci.electronics.misc Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:37?pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Battery technology is an active area of research, but an
obvious question occurs to me: why is it, no one has determined
the maximum possible energy/volume, and energy/weight?
And from there, discover the chemistry which achieves it?

Is there some lacuna in our understanding of solid state physics
which necessitates an empirical, rather than theoretical approach?

Finding the max possible just shows you where you stand in the scheme
of what is possible. That is not our problem. The problem is to be
useful batteries must be useful. That means they must have a
reasonably long life (unlike the so commonly used non-liquid ni-cad
pieces of crap), they need to store as much energy as possible without
a lot of weight (hence the differences between lead and lithium), and
you don't want them to discharge by themselves as they sit around
(Nickel Metal Hydride), Hence the real problem as Uncle Al notes is
practicality.

Batteries are on the margin of useful presently but Lead-acid are
heavy. Ni-cads tend to die in a hurry especially if charged a lot. Ni-
MH tend to discharge just sitting, and Li-ion while very nice in a lot
of ways, tend to slowly sink into the sunset within about 5 years. And
this doesn't even get into what it costs to build these batteries.

Just doubling the life of Li-Ion batteries would go a long way toward
making an electric car decent. What good would "theoretical maximum"
storage do if the thing isn't practical?

You sound like you know batteries.

Do you know if any companies still make large prismatic NiHM cells, in
similar form factors to the flooded aircraft started NiCd batteries?

---
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=large+prismatic+nimh+cells&aq=0&aqi=m1&aql=&oq=large+prismatic+NiHM+cells&gs_rfai=CEAOJYeUfTPLTAofAzQTJ9aHfDQAAAKoEBU_QshOL&fp=bff9aea6fcd663ae

 

[Cydrome Leader]

In sci.electronics.misc John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:22:25 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

In sci.electronics.misc Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:37?pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Battery technology is an active area of research, but an
obvious question occurs to me: why is it, no one has determined
the maximum possible energy/volume, and energy/weight?
And from there, discover the chemistry which achieves it?

Is there some lacuna in our understanding of solid state physics
which necessitates an empirical, rather than theoretical approach?

Finding the max possible just shows you where you stand in the scheme
of what is possible. That is not our problem. The problem is to be
useful batteries must be useful. That means they must have a
reasonably long life (unlike the so commonly used non-liquid ni-cad
pieces of crap), they need to store as much energy as possible without
a lot of weight (hence the differences between lead and lithium), and
you don't want them to discharge by themselves as they sit around
(Nickel Metal Hydride), Hence the real problem as Uncle Al notes is
practicality.

Batteries are on the margin of useful presently but Lead-acid are
heavy. Ni-cads tend to die in a hurry especially if charged a lot. Ni-
MH tend to discharge just sitting, and Li-ion while very nice in a lot
of ways, tend to slowly sink into the sunset within about 5 years. And
this doesn't even get into what it costs to build these batteries.

Just doubling the life of Li-Ion batteries would go a long way toward
making an electric car decent. What good would "theoretical maximum"
storage do if the thing isn't practical?

You sound like you know batteries.

Do you know if any companies still make large prismatic NiHM cells, in
similar form factors to the flooded aircraft started NiCd batteries?

---
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=large+prismatic+nimh+cells&aq=0&aqi=m1&aql=&oq=large+prismatic+NiHM+cells&gs_rfai=CEAOJYeUfTPLTAofAzQTJ9aHfDQAAAKoEBU_QshOL&fp=bff9aea6fcd663ae

nothing relevent there.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:33:12 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
<presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

In sci.electronics.misc John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:22:25 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

In sci.electronics.misc Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:37?pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Battery technology is an active area of research, but an
obvious question occurs to me: why is it, no one has determined
the maximum possible energy/volume, and energy/weight?
And from there, discover the chemistry which achieves it?

Is there some lacuna in our understanding of solid state physics
which necessitates an empirical, rather than theoretical approach?

Finding the max possible just shows you where you stand in the scheme
of what is possible. That is not our problem. The problem is to be
useful batteries must be useful. That means they must have a
reasonably long life (unlike the so commonly used non-liquid ni-cad
pieces of crap), they need to store as much energy as possible without
a lot of weight (hence the differences between lead and lithium), and
you don't want them to discharge by themselves as they sit around
(Nickel Metal Hydride), Hence the real problem as Uncle Al notes is
practicality.

Batteries are on the margin of useful presently but Lead-acid are
heavy. Ni-cads tend to die in a hurry especially if charged a lot. Ni-
MH tend to discharge just sitting, and Li-ion while very nice in a lot
of ways, tend to slowly sink into the sunset within about 5 years. And
this doesn't even get into what it costs to build these batteries.

Just doubling the life of Li-Ion batteries would go a long way toward
making an electric car decent. What good would "theoretical maximum"
storage do if the thing isn't practical?

You sound like you know batteries.

Do you know if any companies still make large prismatic NiHM cells, in
similar form factors to the flooded aircraft started NiCd batteries?

---
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=large+prismatic+nimh+cells&aq=0&aqi=m1&aql=&oq=large+prismatic+NiHM+cells&gs_rfai=CEAOJYeUfTPLTAofAzQTJ9aHfDQAAAKoEBU_QshOL&fp=bff9aea6fcd663ae

nothing relevent there.

---

Checked all 120000 results, did you?

BTW, what do you mean by "flooded aicraft started NiCd batteries"?

 

[Cydrome Leader]

In sci.electronics.misc John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:33:12 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

In sci.electronics.misc John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:22:25 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

In sci.electronics.misc Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jun 17, 10:37?pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Battery technology is an active area of research, but an
obvious question occurs to me: why is it, no one has determined
the maximum possible energy/volume, and energy/weight?
And from there, discover the chemistry which achieves it?

Is there some lacuna in our understanding of solid state physics
which necessitates an empirical, rather than theoretical approach?

Finding the max possible just shows you where you stand in the scheme
of what is possible. That is not our problem. The problem is to be
useful batteries must be useful. That means they must have a
reasonably long life (unlike the so commonly used non-liquid ni-cad
pieces of crap), they need to store as much energy as possible without
a lot of weight (hence the differences between lead and lithium), and
you don't want them to discharge by themselves as they sit around
(Nickel Metal Hydride), Hence the real problem as Uncle Al notes is
practicality.

Batteries are on the margin of useful presently but Lead-acid are
heavy. Ni-cads tend to die in a hurry especially if charged a lot. Ni-
MH tend to discharge just sitting, and Li-ion while very nice in a lot
of ways, tend to slowly sink into the sunset within about 5 years. And
this doesn't even get into what it costs to build these batteries.

Just doubling the life of Li-Ion batteries would go a long way toward
making an electric car decent. What good would "theoretical maximum"
storage do if the thing isn't practical?

You sound like you know batteries.

Do you know if any companies still make large prismatic NiHM cells, in
similar form factors to the flooded aircraft started NiCd batteries?

---
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=large+prismatic+nimh+cells&aq=0&aqi=m1&aql=&oq=large+prismatic+NiHM+cells&gs_rfai=CEAOJYeUfTPLTAofAzQTJ9aHfDQAAAKoEBU_QshOL&fp=bff9aea6fcd663ae

nothing relevent there.

---

Checked all 120000 results, did you?

BTW, what do you mean by "flooded aicraft started NiCd batteries"?

here go over every result and tell me what you find

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=aircraft+starting+battery+%2BNiCd+%2Bflooded&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=d2eda4910a7445ea